Welcome to NanoWorld
Nanotechnology and
the Precautionary Principle Imperative

Nanotechnology -- or nanotech, for short -- is a new approach to industrial
production, based on the manipulation of things so small that they are
invisible to the naked eye and even to most microscopes.

Nanotech is named for the nanometer, a unit of measure, a billionth of
a meter, one one-thousandth of a micrometer. The Oxford English Dictionary
defines nanotechnology as "the branch of technology that deals with dimensions
and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation
of individual atoms and molecules." Nanotech deals in the realm where
a typical grain of sand is huge (a million nanometers in diameter). A
human hair is 200,000 nanometers thick. A red blood cell spans 10,000
nanometers. A virus measures 100 nanometers across, and the smallest atom
(hydrogen) spans 0.1 nanometers.

In the realm below 50 nanometers, the normal laws of physics no longer
apply, quantum physics kicks in and materials take on surprising new properties.
Something that was red may now be green; metals may become translucent
and thus invisible; something that could not conduct electricity may now
pass a current; nonmagnetic materials may become magnetized; insoluble
substances may dissolve. Knowing the properties of a substance in bulk
tells you nothing about its properties at the nano scale, so all nano
materials' characteristics -- including hazardous traits -- must be learned
anew by direct experiment.

Nanotechnologists foresee a second industrial revolution sweeping the
world during our lifetimes as individual atoms are assembled together
into thousands of useful new products. Few deny that new products may
entail new hazards, but most nanotechnologists say existing regulations
are adequate for controlling any hazards that may arise. In the United
States, nanotech is not now subject to any special regulations and nano
products need not even be labeled. Furthermore, no one has developed a
consistent nomenclature for nano materials, so rigorous discussion of
nanotech among regulators and policymakers is not yet possible. Without
consistent nomenclature, standardized safety testing lies in the future.

No one denies that nanotech will produce real benefits, but, based on
the history of nuclear power, biotechnology and the chemical industry,
skeptics are calling for a precautionary approach. The resulting clash
of philosophies -- "Better safe than sorry" versus "Nothing ventured, nothing
gained" or even in some cases "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
-- may offer a major test of the Precautionary Principle as a new way of
managing innovation.

"World Peace, Universal Prosperity"
The pressure for rapid development of nanotech is enormous. The surprising
properties of materials at the nano scale have opened up a new universe
of industrial applications and entrepreneurial dreams. Largely unnoticed,
hundreds of products containing nano-sized particles have already reached
the market -- metal surfaces and paints so slick they clean themselves
when it rains; organic light-emitting diodes for computer screens, digital
cameras and cell phones; sub-miniature data storage devices (aiming to
hold the Library of Congress in a computer the size of a sugar cube);
specialty lubricants; long-mileage vehicle tires; nano-reinforced plastics
for stronger automobile fenders; lightweight military armor; anti-reflective
and scratch-resistant sun glasses; super-slippery ski wax; powerful tennis
rackets and long-lasting tennis balls; inkjet photographic paper intended
to hold an image for 100 years; high-contrast MRI scanners for medical
diagnosis; efficient drug and vaccine delivery systems; vitamins in a
spray; invisible sunscreen ointments containing nano particles of titanium
or zinc; anti-wrinkle cosmetic creams; and so on.

And this is just the beginning. Nanotech wasn't possible until the invention
in the 1980s and early 1990s of ways to arrange individual atoms under
software control. Nano particles, nanotubes and carbon nano crystals called
Bucky Balls (after Buckminster Fuller) are now being manufactured in ton
quantities for industrial use. Currently technologists are working feverishly
to coax nature's most successful nano factory, the living cell, to grow
useful new nano assemblies. It is no exaggeration to say that the field
of nanotech is gripped by something approaching a gold rush mentality.
Worldwide, governments are spending an estimated $3 billion per year on
nanotech research, and the private sector is thought to be spending at
least that much. The U.S. government alone will spend at least $3.7 billion
on nano R&D during the next four years. The global market for nano products
is expected to reach $1 trillion in 10 years or less. Any day of the week
you can check in at and catch a glimpse of the
gold rush in action.

But for some prominent proponents of nanotech, this is about more than
money -- it is about reinventing the entire world, including humans, as
they now exist. According to the U.S. National Science Foundation, nanotechnology
is the foundation stone of NBIC -- a revolutionary convergence of nanotech,
biotech (manipulation of genes), info tech (computers), and cogno tech
(brain function). In a report sponsored by the National Science Foundation
and the Department of Commerce, the technologists and politicians who
are promoting this revolution say it is "essential to the future of humanity"
because it holds the promise of "world peace, universal prosperity, and
evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment." They say
it may be "a watershed in history to rank with the invention of agriculture
and the Industrial Revolution." The ultimate aim of this revolution has
been an explicit human goal for at least 400 years -- the "conquest of
nature" and the enhancement of human capabilities.

Whatever else it may offer, the nanotech revolution entails a radical
new approach to industrial production with the potential to change every
existing industry, plus create new ones. Typical manufacturing today --
even construction of the tiniest computer circuit -- relies on "top-down"
techniques, machining or etching products out of blocks of raw material.
For example, a common technique for making a transistor begins with a
chunk of silicon, which is etched to remove unwanted material, leaving
behind a sculpted circuit. This "top-down" method of construction creates
the desired product plus waste residues.

In contrast, nanotech makes possible "bottom-up" construction in which
atoms are arranged under software control -- or in ideal cases they will
self-assemble, just as living cells self-assemble -- into the desired configuration
with nothing left over, no waste. Instead of cutting trees into lumber
to make a table, why not just "grow" a table? Thus nanotech seems to offer
the possibility of waste-free manufacturing and therefore a cleaner environment.
Furthermore, nanotech may help remediate past pollution. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is funding research on releasing nano particles
into the environment to detoxify mountains of toxic waste remaining from
the 20th century's experiment with petroleum-based chemistry.

Unless nanotechnology is shared generously, it may create a "nano
divide" similar to the "digital divide" that exists now between those
with ready access to computers and those without.

Humans given enhanced mental or physical capabilities may gain great
advantage over normal people. On the other hand, some people may be
coerced to accept dubious or unwanted enhancements.

Inequalities within and between nations may be exacerbated if individuals
and corporations gain monopoly control of nanotech by patenting the
building blocks of the universe -- a precedent set in 1964 when Glenn
T. Seaborg was issued a patent on an element he discovered and named
Americium.

In the longer term, some leading technologists like Ray Kurzweil, inventor
of the first reading machine for the blind, and Bill Joy, one of the founders
of Sun Microsystems, fear that nanotech will give individuals -- inadvertently
or intentionally -- destructive potential greater than the power of atomic
weapons. As Joy wrote in 2000, "I think it is no exaggeration to say we
are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose
possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction
bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment
of extreme individuals."

Others, such as the insurance industry, have more mundane concerns about
nanotech -- chiefly, the potential health and environmental hazards of
tiny particles. In May of this year, Swiss Re, the world's second-largest
reinsurance firm, issued a report calling for the Precautionary Principle
to guide nanotech development. Swiss Re itemized a host of potential problems
that it says need to be resolved before nanotech products are fully deployed,
including these:

One of the new properties of nano-sized particles is their extreme
mobility. They have "almost unrestricted access to the human body,"
Swiss Re points out, because they can enter the blood stream through
the lungs and possibly through the skin, and seem to enter the brain
directly via olfactory nerves. Once in the blood stream, nano particles
can "move practically unhindered through the entire body," unlike larger
particles that are trapped and removed by various protective mechanisms.

If they become airborne, nano particles can float for very long periods
because -- unlike larger particles -- they do not readily settle onto
surfaces. In water, nano particles spread unhindered and pass through
most available filters. So, for example, current drinking water filters
will not effectively remove nano particles. Even in soil, nano particles
may move in unexpected ways, perhaps penetrating the roots of plants
and thus entering the food chains of humans and animals.

One of the most useful features of nano particles is their huge surface
area. The smaller the particle, the larger its surface in relation to
its mass. A gram of nano particles has a surface area of a thousand
square meters. Their large surfaces give nano particles some of their
most desirable characteristics. For example, drug-coated nano particles
may one day transport pharmaceuticals directly to specific sites within
the human body. Unfortunately, their large surface also means that nano
particles may collect and transport pollutants. Furthermore, their large
surface means nano particles are highly reactive in a chemical sense.
As Swiss Re noted, "As size decreases and reactivity increases, harmful
effects may be intensified, and normally harmless substances may assume
hazardous characteristics."

Nano particles may harm living tissue, such as lungs, in at least two
ways -- through normal effects of chemical reactivity, or by damaging phagocytes,
which are scavenger cells that normally remove foreign substances. Phagocytes
can become "overloaded" by nano particles and cease functioning. Worse,
overloaded phagocytes retreat into deeper layers and so become unavailable
to protect against foreign invaders. Successive particles are then able
to do their full reactive damage, and other invaders, such as bacteria,
may penetrate unhindered.

The surface reactivity of nano particles gives rise to "free radicals,"
which are atoms containing an "unsatisfactory" number of electrons (either
too few or too many for stability). Free radicals swap electrons with
nearby atoms, creating further instabilities and setting off a cascade
of effects. Free radicals give rise to inflammation and tissue damage,
and may initiate serious harm, such as growth of tumors. On the other
hand, some free radicals are beneficial, destroying invaders. So the role
of nano particles in producing free radicals remains to be clarified.

Nano particles would normally tend to clump together, forming larger,
less dangerous particles -- but nanotechnologists take pains to prevent
clumping by adding special coatings. As a result, nano particles in
many commercial products, sprays and powders remain reactive and highly
mobile.

Whether nano particles can pass through the skin into the blood stream
is the subject of intense debate. Different experiments have yielded
conflicting results, presumably because test protocols have not been
standardized. Some believe that nano particles may slip between the
layers of outer skin and penetrate through to the blood below. Others
believe that hair follicles offer a direct route for nano particles
to penetrate from skin to blood. No one knows for sure. Despite this
knowledge gap, sun screens, skin lotions and baby products containing
nano particles are already on the market. Clearly this is a problem
for insurance firms providing liability coverage. Swiss Re says, "Considering
the wide variety of products already on the market, the need for a solution
is urgent."

Ingested nano particles can be absorbed through "Peyer's plaques,"
part of the immune system lining the intestines. From there, nano particles
can enter the blood stream, be transported throughout the body, "and
behave in ways that may be detrimental to the organism," Swiss Re notes.
While in the blood stream, nano particles have been observed entering
the blood cells themselves.

Once in the body, nano particles can enter the heart, bone marrow,
ovaries, muscles, brain, liver, spleen and lymph nodes. During pregnancy,
nano particles would likely cross the placenta and enter the fetus.
The specific effects in any given organ would depend upon the surface
chemistry of particular particles, which in turn would be determined
by their size and surface coating. "It is likely that in the course
of its entire evolution, humankind has never been exposed to such a
wide variety of substances that can penetrate the human body apparently
unhindered," Swiss Re says.

The brain is one of the best-protected of all human organs. A guardian
"blood-brain barrier" prevents most substances in the blood from entering
the brain (alcohol and caffeine being two well-known exceptions). However,
nano particles have repeatedly been shown to pass into the brain, where
their effects are unknown. Will they accumulate and, if so, to what
effect?

Nano particles may disrupt the immune system, cause allergic reactions,
interfere with essential signals sent between neighboring cells, or
disrupt exchanges between enzymes, Swiss Re says. Some of these characteristics
may be harnessed for benefit -- for example, in experiments a carbon
nano crystal has been able to disrupt one of the processes that allows
the AIDS virus to multiply.

Nano particles in disposable products will eventually enter the environment.
In the environment, nano particles represent an entirely new class of
pollutants with which scientists (and nature) have no experience. Swiss
Re speculates that, "Via the water cycle, nano particles could spread
rapidly all over the globe, possibly also promoting the transport of
pollutants." Swiss Re asks, "What would happen if certain nanoparticles
did exert a harmful influence on the environment? Would it be possible
to withdraw them from circulation? Would there be any way of removing
nanoparticles from the water, earth, or air?"

Turning to workplace hazards, Swiss Re asks whether nano particles
will become the next asbestos. To protect workers, effective face masks
are "not a very realistic prospect at present, since the requisite design
would render normal breathing impossible." New designs may be possible
but remain unproven.

Precaution on a Super-Small Scale

Swiss Re notes that, in the past, the drive toward rapid technological
innovation has "prevented the introduction of the Precautionary Principle
in relation to new technologies for more than 20 years." But now, "in
view of the dangers to society that could arise out of the establishment
of nanotechnology, and given the uncertainty currently prevailing in scientific
circles, the Precautionary Principle should be applied whatever the difficulties,"
Swiss Re asserts. "The Precautionary Principle demands the proactive introduction
of protective measures in the face of possible risks, which science at
present -- in the absence of knowledge -- can neither confirm nor reject."

What would precaution look like in a rapidly developing field like nanotech?
The British Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering issued
a nanotech report in July 2004 recommending a series of precautionary
actions, with the following chain of reasoning:

"The evidence we have reviewed suggests that some manufactured nanoparticles
and nanotubes are likely to be more toxic per unit mass than particles
of the same chemicals at larger size and will therefore present a greater
hazard."

"There is virtually no evidence available to allow the potential environmental
impacts of nanoparticles and nanotubes to be evaluated."

Therefore, "the release of nanoparticles to the environment [should
be] minimized until these uncertainties are reduced."

And, "until there is evidence to the contrary, factories and research
laboratories should treat manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as
if they were hazardous and seek to reduce them as far as possible from
waste streams."

These recommendations reverse the traditional approach to industrial
materials, which have historically been assumed benign until shown otherwise.

The Royal Society puts the burden of producing information about safety
on industry, not on the public: "A wide range of uses for nanotubes and
nanoparticles is envisaged that will fix them within products. ... We
believe that the onus should be on industry to assess ... releases [of
nano particles from products] throughout a product's lifetime (including
at the end-of-life) and to make that information available to the regulator."
From such a recommendation, it is a very short step to the European Union's
precautionary proposal for industrial chemicals, called REACH (Registration,
Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), which is often summarized
as, "No data, no market."

The Royal Society recommended that the use of zinc oxide nano particles
and iron oxide nano particles in cosmetics should "await a safety assessment"
-- in other words a moratorium on these products is recommended. Likewise,
"the release of free manufactured nanoparticles into the environment for
[pollution] remediation (which has been piloted in the USA) should be
prohibited until there is sufficient information to allow the potential
risks to be evaluated as well as the benefits."

The Precautionary Principle is sometimes called the foresight principle.
Importantly, the Royal Society's report fully embraces foresight for nanotechnology
(and all other new technologies):

"Our study has identified important issues that need to be addressed
with some urgency" and so it is "essential" for government to "establish
a group that brings together representatives of a wide range of stakeholders
to look at new and emerging technologies and identify at the earliest
possible stage areas where potential health, safety, environmental, social,
ethical and regulatory issues may arise and advise about how these might
be addressed." The group must provide "an early warning of areas where
regulation may be inadequate for specific applications of these technologies."

And, finally, "The work of this group should be made public so that all
stakeholders can be encouraged to engage with the emerging issues."

Thus nanotech is sparking not only a new industrial revolution but demands
for a reversal of traditional approaches to managing innovation and a
turn toward precautionary action.

Whether the momentum gathering behind the precautionary approach can
redirect the charge behind nanotech -- a confluence of government and technophile
advocates in alliance with an emerging industrial lobby -- remains uncertain.

Peter Montague is executive director of the New
Brunswick, New Jersey-based Environmental Research Foundation, and editor
of Rachel's Environment and Health News.